Times plans new splash on NSA surveillance - The Orange Mane

Spider · 01-03-2006, 06:16 PM

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/NYT_so...lash_0103.html

NYT sources: Times plans new splash on NSA surveillance

RAW STORY

Print This | Email This

The New York Times' Eric Lichtblau is writing a major story that editors are considering for the front page of Wednesday's editions of the paper with new developments on the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance, RAW STORY can reveal.

Just weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency expanded its domestic surveillance powers, apparently without any specific presidential directive, according to declassified documents released to the Times Tuesday.

The Times has drawn fire from both the right and left for their revelation that President Bush authorized the wiretapping of international phone calls made from within the United States. The paper held the story for a year, and withheld some information from their report at the request of the administration, agreeing that some of the facts might deleteriously affect the war on terror.
Advertisement

The Times story, released on the eve of the Patriot Act's reauthorization, may have singlehandedly blocked the controversial measure from being renewed.

DEVELOPING...

Spider · 01-03-2006, 06:20 PM

Pelosi .......
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Pelosi..._NSA_0103.html
Pelosi releases declassified letter outlining NSA concerns she wrote four years ago

RAW STORY

Print This | Email This

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi today released a letter written from herself to the National Security Agency in October 2001, as well as the response it received. Both documents were recently declassified at her request.

In the first letter, Pelosi expresses concerns over authorization of electronic surveillance by the NSA. The reply from Lieutenant General Michael Hayden, then National Security Agency (NSA) Director, was redacted during declassification to the length of three sentences.

The text of letters, redacted, follows:

#

October 11, 2001

Lieutenant General Michael V. Hayden, USAF Director National Security Agency Fort George G. Mead, Maryland 20755 Washington, D.C. 20340-1001

Dear General Hayden:

During your appearance before the committee on October 1, you indicated that you had been operating since the September 11 attacks with an expansive view of your authorities with respect to the conduct of electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and related statutes, orders, regulations, and guidelines. You seemed to be inviting expressions of concern from us, if there were any, and, after the briefing was over and I had a chance to reflect on what you said, I instructed staff to get more information on this matter for me. For several reasons, including what I consider to be an overly broad interpretation of President Bush's directive of October 5 on sharing with Congress "classified or sensitive law enforcement information" it has not been possible to get answers to my questions.

Without those answers, the concerns I have about what you said on the 1st can not be resolved, and I wanted to bring them to your attention directly. You indicated that you were treating as a matter of first impression,

[redacted]

being of foreign intelligence interest. As a result, you were forwarding the intercepts, and any information

[redacted]

without first receiving a request for that identifying information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Although I may be persuaded by the strength of your analysis

[redacted]

I believe you have a much more difficult case to make

[redacted]

Therefore, I am concerned whether, and to what extent, the National Security Agency has received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting. Until I understand better the legal analysis regarding the sufficiency of the authority which underlies your decision on the appropriate way to proceed on this matter, I will continue to be concerned.

Sincerely, /s/ NANCY PELOSI Ranking Democrat
#

Hayden's response

18 October 2001

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Ranking Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence H-405, The Capitol Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative Pelosi:

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify any ambiguity that may have arisen as a result of my briefing on October 1 to members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

In my briefing, I was attempting to emphasize that I used my authorities to adjust NSA's collection and reporting.

[redacted]

Again, thank you for allowing me to clarify this matter.

Michael Hayden

Spider · 01-03-2006, 06:24 PM

these 2 storys seem to conflict one another .......NYT has

Quote:

Just weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency expanded its domestic surveillance powers, apparently without any specific presidential directive, according to declassified documents released to the Times Tuesday.

and Nancy Pelosi released thisletter from 4 years ago

Quote:

For several reasons, including what I consider to be an overly broad interpretation of President Bush's directive of October 5 on sharing with Congress "classified or sensitive law enforcement information" it has not been possible to get answers to my questions.

I guess some where inbetween is the truth .......

BroncoBuff · 01-04-2006, 03:02 AM

The real issue here - from the standpoint of governance - is that Bush justifies his actions by citing war power authority (war against terror, not Iraq war). The problem is, the "War Against Terror" will never end, almost by definition.

THEREFORE, this enhanced authority has no specified end date . . . the "terrorists" will never sign surrender documents . . . so this enhanced authority, ergo, must MUST BE PERMANENT!!

Actaully, §pider, we're "through the looking glass" here . . . man, I thought the Iraqi war, the WMD, and Karl Rove/Scooter Libby thing, the torture thing - all that was bad, but THIS! This is beyond any measure of ANYthing. They have 72 hours before they're forced to go to the FISA court - but willfully choose not to . . . while Bush lied to the American people 6 months ago that they always get warrants!

Man, forget political parties, Senate majorities, wars, anything - these are high crimes. We're past Nixon now - WAY past.

Spider · 01-04-2006, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff1

Actaully, §pider, we're "through the looking glass" here . . . man, I thought the Iraqi war, the WMD, and Karl Rove/Scooter Libby thing, the torture thing - all that was bad, but THIS! This is beyond any measure of ANYthing. They have 72 hours before they're forced to go to the FISA court - but willfully choose not to . . . while Bush lied to the American people 6 months ago that they always get warrants!

Man, forget political parties, Senate majorities, wars, anything - these are high crimes. We're past Nixon now - WAY past.

I know you are right ,and I dont like Bush , but i was just looking for somthing , to say Bush wasnt doing this , you are correct , Watergate is shoplifting candy compared to this ......

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 01-04-2006, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff1

The real issue here - from the standpoint of governance - is that Bush justifies his actions by citing war power authority (war against terror, not Iraq war). The problem is, the "War Against Terror" will never end, almost by definition.

THEREFORE, this enhanced authority has no specified end date . . . the "terrorists" will never sign surrender documents . . . so this enhanced authority, ergo, must MUST BE PERMANENT!!

Actaully, §pider, we're "through the looking glass" here . . . man, I thought the Iraqi war, the WMD, and Karl Rove/Scooter Libby thing, the torture thing - all that was bad, but THIS! This is beyond any measure of ANYthing. They have 72 hours before they're forced to go to the FISA court - but willfully choose not to . . . while Bush lied to the American people 6 months ago that they always get warrants!

Man, forget political parties, Senate majorities, wars, anything - these are high crimes. We're past Nixon now - WAY past.

Bingo.

BroncoBuff1 is obviously part of the majority in America who are not sleeping and not in denial re: the extent of BushCo's corruption and criminality.

BroncoBuff · 01-04-2006, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by §Pide®

I know you are right ,and I dont like Bush , but i was just looking for somthing , to say Bush wasnt doing this , you are correct , Watergate is shoplifting candy compared to this ......

And the PERMANENCE of it! If this "enhanced authority" stems from war powers, as they claim, and the War Against Terror is obviously ongoing forever, then isn't this a de-facto Constitutional amendment?!

By the way, if there's REALLY a War Against Terror, why are all our guys in Iraq? They should be combing the mountains of Tora-Bora! That's where the 9/11 perp is hiding!

If I had a relative or loved one in one of those towers, I'd be really p-o'd about giving bin-Laden a pass . . . .

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 01-04-2006, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff1

By the way, if there's REALLY a War Against Terror, why are all our guys in Iraq? They should be combing the mountains of Tora-Bora! That's where the 9/11 perp is hiding!

Yep.

Team Smirk & Snarl has been able to dupe the red state rubes by obscuring the fact that terror is an emotion and terrorism is a tactic. To claim to wage war against either is absurd.

01-03-2006, 06:16 PM	#1
Spider Mr Diplomacy I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane Join Date: May 2001 Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder Posts: 84,438 Adopt-a-Bronco: Von Miller	Times plans new splash on NSA surveillance http://rawstory.com/news/2005/NYT_so...lash_0103.html NYT sources: Times plans new splash on NSA surveillance RAW STORY Print This \| Email This The New York Times' Eric Lichtblau is writing a major story that editors are considering for the front page of Wednesday's editions of the paper with new developments on the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance, RAW STORY can reveal. Just weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency expanded its domestic surveillance powers, apparently without any specific presidential directive, according to declassified documents released to the Times Tuesday. The Times has drawn fire from both the right and left for their revelation that President Bush authorized the wiretapping of international phone calls made from within the United States. The paper held the story for a year, and withheld some information from their report at the request of the administration, agreeing that some of the facts might deleteriously affect the war on terror. Advertisement The Times story, released on the eve of the Patriot Act's reauthorization, may have singlehandedly blocked the controversial measure from being renewed. DEVELOPING...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-03-2006, 06:20 PM	#2
Spider Mr Diplomacy I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane Join Date: May 2001 Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder Posts: 84,438 Adopt-a-Bronco: Von Miller	Pelosi ....... http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Pelosi..._NSA_0103.html Pelosi releases declassified letter outlining NSA concerns she wrote four years ago RAW STORY Print This \| Email This House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi today released a letter written from herself to the National Security Agency in October 2001, as well as the response it received. Both documents were recently declassified at her request. In the first letter, Pelosi expresses concerns over authorization of electronic surveillance by the NSA. The reply from Lieutenant General Michael Hayden, then National Security Agency (NSA) Director, was redacted during declassification to the length of three sentences. The text of letters, redacted, follows: # October 11, 2001 Lieutenant General Michael V. Hayden, USAF Director National Security Agency Fort George G. Mead, Maryland 20755 Washington, D.C. 20340-1001 Dear General Hayden: During your appearance before the committee on October 1, you indicated that you had been operating since the September 11 attacks with an expansive view of your authorities with respect to the conduct of electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and related statutes, orders, regulations, and guidelines. You seemed to be inviting expressions of concern from us, if there were any, and, after the briefing was over and I had a chance to reflect on what you said, I instructed staff to get more information on this matter for me. For several reasons, including what I consider to be an overly broad interpretation of President Bush's directive of October 5 on sharing with Congress "classified or sensitive law enforcement information" it has not been possible to get answers to my questions. Without those answers, the concerns I have about what you said on the 1st can not be resolved, and I wanted to bring them to your attention directly. You indicated that you were treating as a matter of first impression, [redacted] being of foreign intelligence interest. As a result, you were forwarding the intercepts, and any information [redacted] without first receiving a request for that identifying information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Although I may be persuaded by the strength of your analysis [redacted] I believe you have a much more difficult case to make [redacted] Therefore, I am concerned whether, and to what extent, the National Security Agency has received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting. Until I understand better the legal analysis regarding the sufficiency of the authority which underlies your decision on the appropriate way to proceed on this matter, I will continue to be concerned. Sincerely, /s/ NANCY PELOSI Ranking Democrat # Hayden's response 18 October 2001 The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Ranking Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence H-405, The Capitol Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Pelosi: Thank you for the opportunity to clarify any ambiguity that may have arisen as a result of my briefing on October 1 to members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. In my briefing, I was attempting to emphasize that I used my authorities to adjust NSA's collection and reporting. [redacted] Again, thank you for allowing me to clarify this matter. Michael Hayden

01-04-2006, 03:02 AM	#4
BroncoBuff *************** Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Seattle Posts: 25,437 Adopt-a-Bronco: QUANTERUS SMITH	The real issue here - from the standpoint of governance - is that Bush justifies his actions by citing war power authority (war against terror, not Iraq war). The problem is, the "War Against Terror" will never end, almost by definition. THEREFORE, this enhanced authority has no specified end date . . . the "terrorists" will never sign surrender documents . . . so this enhanced authority, ergo, must MUST BE PERMANENT!! Actaully, §pider, we're "through the looking glass" here . . . man, I thought the Iraqi war, the WMD, and Karl Rove/Scooter Libby thing, the torture thing - all that was bad, but THIS! This is beyond any measure of ANYthing. They have 72 hours before they're forced to go to the FISA court - but willfully choose not to . . . while Bush lied to the American people 6 months ago that they always get warrants! Man, forget political parties, Senate majorities, wars, anything - these are high crimes. We're past Nixon now - WAY past.